THE SUPREME COURT AND CONSERVATION POLICIES 929 



administration of the National Forests and to authorize the Secretary 

 of Agriculture to estahlish such rules and regulations. It held that the 

 violation of such regulations was an ofifense and was subject to the 

 punishment prescribed by Congress. Decision rendered May 3, 1911. 



(3) In the case of the United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water 

 Power Company, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a 

 decision upon which is based the Federal Government's authority to 

 regulate the use of navigable streams for the development of water 

 power. It held that "the title of the riparian owner to the bed of the 

 navigable stream is a qualified one, and subordinate to the public right 

 of navigation and subject to the absolute power of Congress over the 

 improvement of navigable rivers." Also that "under the Constitution, 

 Congress can adopt any means for the improvement of navigation that 

 are not prohibited by that instrument itself. * * * Private owner- 

 ship of running water in a great navigable stream is inconceivable." 

 Decision May 26, 1913. 



(4) In the case of Swigart v. Baker, the Supreme Court upheld the 

 validity of the Reclamation Act of 1902, providing that the cost of 

 maintenance as well as actual construction may be charged against 

 the property benefited, thereby maintaining the integrity of the reclama- 

 tion fund so that it will be paid back in full and used in subsequent 

 projects without diminvition. Decision May 26, 1913. 



(5) In the case of the United States v. Midwest Oil Company the 

 Supreme Court sustained the practice of the withdrawal of public 

 lands, both mineral and non-mineral, from private acquisition by the 

 President without special authorization from Congress even though the 

 lands may have previously been open to occupation. Perhaps no other 

 conservation activity was so widely denounced as unlawful as the prac- 

 tice of making withdrawals of natural resources in the public interests. 

 According to the decision of the Supreme Court, it was lawful for the 

 President to make such withdrawals and unlawful for his critics to 

 disregard them. Decision February 23, ] 915. 



(6) In the case of the Utah Power and Light Company v. the 

 United States the Supreme Court sustained the right of Congress to 

 regulate the use of lands of the United States, and that such right could 

 not be diminished by the State in which it was situated providing for 

 their use for private or quasi-public purposes under State laws. This 

 was a water power case and further sustained the contentions of the 

 Forest Service to the effect that permission for the use of National 

 Forest lands for power purposes must be secured under the Act of 

 February 1, 1905, and is not granted by preceding acts authorizing the 

 use of public lands for reservoirs, ditches, and canals for irrigation. 

 Decision March 19, 1917. 



(7) In the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway 

 Company of Idaho v. the United States the Supreme Court held that 

 the railroad company, in order to secure a right-of-way through the 



